On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:03:11PM +0800, Osier Yang wrote:
> On 2012年03月21日 01:33, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >From: "Daniel P. Berrange"<berra...@redhat.com>
> >@@ -70,8 +84,7 @@ virURIFormat(virURIPtr uri)
> > char *ret;
> >
> > /* First check: does it make sense to do anything */
> >- if (uri != NULL&&
> >- uri->server != NULL&&
> >+ if (uri->server != NULL&&
> > strchr(uri->server, ':') != NULL) {
> >
> > backupserver = uri->server;
> >@@ -82,7 +95,12 @@ virURIFormat(virURIPtr uri)
> > }
> >
> > ret = (char *) xmlSaveUri(uri);
> >+ if (!ret) {
> >+ virReportOOMError();
> >+ goto cleanup;
> >+ }
> >
> >+cleanup:
>
> The cleanup label doesn't make any sense. Or it's for follow up
> pacthes use? but it should be together with the follow up patch
> if so.
I think it is preferrable to always have an explicit cleanup:
statement in this scenario, rather than relying on fallthrough.
It avoids future code additionals introducing cleanup bugs.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
